↓ Skip to main content

Are human embryos Kantian persons?: Kantian considerations in favor of embryonic stem cell research

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are human embryos Kantian persons?: Kantian considerations in favor of embryonic stem cell research
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-3-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bertha Alvarez Manninen

Abstract

One argument used by detractors of human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) invokes Kant's formula of humanity, which proscribes treating persons solely as a means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. According to Fuat S. Oduncu, for example, adhering to this imperative entails that human embryos should not be disaggregated to obtain pluripotent stem cells for hESCR. Given that human embryos are Kantian persons from the time of their conception, killing them to obtain their cells for research fails to treat them as ends in themselves. This argument assumes two points that are rather contentious given a Kantian framework. First, the argument assumes that when Kant maintains that humanity must be treated as an end in itself, he means to argue that all members of the species Homo sapiens must be treated as ends in themselves; that is, that Kant regards personhood as co-extensive with belonging to the species Homo sapiens. Second, the argument assumes that the event of conception is causally responsible for the genesis of a Kantian person and that, therefore, an embryo is a Kantian person from the time of its conception. In this paper, I will present challenges against these two assumptions by engaging in an exegetical study of some of Kant's works. First, I will illustrate that Kant did not use the term "humanity" to denote a biological species, but rather the capacity to set ends according to reason. Second, I will illustrate that it is difficult given a Kantian framework to denote conception (indeed any biological event) as causally responsible for the creation of a person. Kant ascribed to a dualistic view of human agency, and personhood, according to him, was derived from the supersensible capacity for reason. To argue that a Kantian person is generated due to the event of conception ignores Kant's insistence in various aspects of his work that it is not possible to understand the generation of a person qua a physical operation. Finally, I will end the paper by drawing from Allen Wood's work in Kantian philosophy in order to generate an argument in favor of hESCR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 30%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Philosophy 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Other 10 27%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,150,647
of 25,634,695 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#215
of 235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,344
of 173,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,634,695 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.